There were numerous items covered that were administrative in nature and probably not of interest to the general community.  Therefore, this summary covers only a few issues.

Back Gate Closure – Increased Costs

The Board informed the community last November that the back gate would be shut for most of the early morning hours.  Residents would be able to get in or out, but visitors would have to go to the front gate.  The decision was based on a study showing that, on average, the back gate admitted only one or two guest vehicles per night at these times.

The cost of modifying the back gate was estimated at $17,000, and annual labor savings were estimated at roughly $40,000.  The switch was to occur either in February or March.

At this meeting, it was noted that the cost of modifying the gate is now above $45,000 and still somewhat open-ended.  Much more work is being done than was originally anticipated; such as better cameras, better gates, emergency access, an entrance kiosk, etc.  Also, the switch to the unmanned gate was put out to sometime in April; thus impacting the projected first year labor savings.

Funds for these additional, unexpected costs will have to come from contingency accounts.

Blast E-Mail Issue – Discussion

The Board discussed the issue of residents using e-mail information from the POA directory to send unsolicited, blast e-mails to the entire community.

Note:  To understand why this issue was raised, it might be helpful to read the background information and then come back to this update.  Click here: Blast E-Mail Background

Kelley Hunter presented a provision of the state law which deals with membership lists of non- profit organizations (of which our POA is one…..).

In simple language, it says that any resident can use the information without the Board’s consent as long as the use is related to a “member’s interest as a member”.  Further, it specifically prohibits the use of information without the Board’s consent for commercial purposes, sale to third parties or for solicitation of funds (unless the funds are to be used solely to solicit votes in a membership election).

As noted in the background paper, we have always had a policy against anyone using this information for personal blast e-mails.  Kelley Hunter now presented a law which essentially seemed to say that our policy was ineffective and unenforceable.

There was an extended discussion during which numerous interesting points were raised; which I have attempted to summarize as follows:

• Community members are asked to provide contact information which is then provided to the community through the POA Directory.  To date, other than the instances described in the background paper, nobody has used POA information for unsolicited, blast emails.  Concern was expressed that, if the blast e-mail practice continues, residents might become reluctant to share such information.  That would have two effects.  First, it would hinder the ability of POA management to quickly and easily contact those residents.  Second, it would hinder the ability of other residents to privately contact those people for legitimate personal reasons; in effect taking away the main purpose of the directory.

• Saying that the use of e-mail address information must be related to a “member’s interest as a member” leaves it pretty wide open.  And, while one person’s use might be legitimate, there would be no way to stop somebody from asking for the information and then using it in an unauthorized manner contrary to what they originally represented.  People generally felt that the Board would have no recourse against somebody who did this; but that legal advice would be necessary to be certain of this point.

• Several Board members expressed concern at the use of such information to send anonymous, blast e-mails; even if the messages fell into the category of “related to a member’s interest as a member”.  Someone could obtain the information for a legitimate reason and then decide to use it for anonymous e-mails at a later date.

It was hard to get a specific reading on where each Board member stood on this issue.  Kelley Hunter was clearly in favor of allowing residents to use POA directory information for unsolicited blast e-mails in accordance with the state laws.  Denny Clark made the most forceful arguments against the practice; noting that it could get out of hand if lots of people decided to send out their opinions to the entire community.  It seemed to me that the many of the other Board members were leaning against the idea of allowing the practice but seemed resigned to the idea that, according to state law, it could not be stopped.

One interesting idea was floated; that being that we adopt a policy which actively discourages such use of POA information with the hope that residents will be courteous enough to voluntarily follow it.  There did not seem to be a groundswell of support for the idea.  Other than Denny Clark, no other director seemed very interested in trying to find a way to prevent this practice from occurring.

It was left to Kelley Hunter to do further research, perhaps seek legal advice and come up with a draft policy of some sort.   (Editorial comment:  It was all left pretty vague; especially since the task was given to the one director most in favor of allowing unsolicited blast-e mails.)

Marketing – Discussion

The Board reviewed the results of the vote on the proposed marketing plan; on which over 80% of the ballots cast were against.  Comments indicated a general agreement that the efforts of the consultant at the meetings were disappointing.

There was general agreement that marketing not be totally dropped because, in the long run, the brand image is very important to the health of the community.  Ideas were floated that perhaps we should be concentrating on efforts that were smaller in nature and less expensive.  But nothing concrete was discussed at this meeting.

Interesting factoid:  We have over 1,200 lots in the community; which translates to over 1,200 votes.  Less than 500 votes were cast in the most recent election for directors.  But over 800 votes were cast in the election having to do with the marketing proposal.  (Nothing like money to get people’s attention….)

No Hunting Sign Clean-Up

The Board moved to have POA management representatives take down several No Hunting signs on Lot 47.  The background to this is mildly interesting.

One of the Plaintiffs in the sign litigation posted three or four No Hunting signs on Lot 47.  The owner of the lot gave permission for this to be done.  They were put up before the lawsuit was instituted and, since the owner of the lot was not a party to the suit, the signs should have been taken down in March 2011.  They were not.  Further, when agreement was reached with the Plaintiffs and the lawsuit dismissed, the signs definitely should have come down at that point.  It seems that this Plaintiff could not be bothered doing so.

The Board decided to remove the signs rather than require the plaintiff to remove them.

For a summary of the entire sign litigation issue, click here:  Litigation Summary